OnTrack: Real-Time Monitoring and Intervention in LLM Agent Trajectories via Streaming Structure-Aware Optimal Transport

Autonomous LLM agents can pursue hidden malicious objectives through sequences of individually benign actions, making sabotage difficult to detect using standard trajectory-level monitoring. Existing approaches either evaluate complete trajectories in a single pass or partition them into independently scored windows, limiting their ability to connect evidence across temporally distant actions. We propose TRACE, a monitoring framework for long-horizon LLM agent trajectories. TRACE operates through a TIJ (Triage-Inspect-Judge) loop that identifies high-signal regions, performs targeted inspection while maintaining accumulated evidence across reasoning steps, and synthesizes a trajectory-level verdict. We evaluate TRACE on ten task domains from SHADE-Arena against state-of-the-art baselines. TRACE achieves an aggregate F1 of 0.713 and recall of 0.844, with the largest gains on tasks requiring long-range evidence linking.

LLM agents fail mid-episode -- they loop, cascade tool errors, drift off goal, fabricate results, or silently absorb corrupted content -- and the standard remedy, judging every step with a second LLM, costs more than the agent itself. We ask how much detection is achievable from observable step telemetry alone, using monitors costing microseconds per step and trained only on healthy runs. On 2,823 committed agent episodes across three frameworks, three local models (qwen2.5 7b/3b, llama3.1 8b) and a commercial API (gemini-2.5-flash), a one-class echo-state-network ensemble with CUSUM alarms detects 0.71 of failures at a 5% false-alarm budget (AUROC 0.872). Its advantage over a memoryless baseline is a monotone function of post-onset horizon (+0.09 at <=3 steps, +0.40 at >=9), predicting its own failure region out of sample on AFTraj-2K. Ranking transfers with no retraining to two corpora from other groups (AFTraj-2K 0.745, ATBench 0.779). Monitors carry two burdens: a per-deployment healthy null (they do not transfer -- AUROC 0.527 cold against 0.885 recalibrated) and a residual false-alarm rate. We add a layer carrying neither: deterministic verification, which recomputes a run's stated total from the tool results it actually received and confirms every required call was made. Head-to-head it catches 60% of failures (96% with the coverage check) at 0 of 63 false positives against the monitor's 54% at 17%, transfers unchanged to llama3.1:8b (110 of 110 at 0 of 10), and trips on 0 of 1825 healthy episodes. Detection is then closed into repair: each flagged run is rolled back and re-run live, recovering 45% of failures against a 16% resampling control (p=0.0005) and lifting task success from 52% to 73% for about one extra model call per run. The system runs at ~200 microseconds per step, three orders of magnitude below a judge call. Code, traces and results are released.

Large language model (LLM) agents execute multi-step tasks, but terminal verdicts arrive too late for intervention. Agent traces mix messages, tool calls, and feedback, making it difficult to learn failure signals from terminal outcomes. Even if a model learns to predict failure from execution prefixes, its predictions alone cannot show which actions, feedback, or unmet conditions need inspection. Existing work studies online failure prediction and diagnosis from completed trajectories, yet few methods connect timely warning to a compact symbolic model of execution behavior. We introduce \textbf{PrefixGuard}, a neuro-symbolic method that uses learned events to connect online failure warning with finite-state execution diagnosis. A gated recurrent unit (GRU) predicts horizon-specific failure risk from these events. A deterministic finite automaton (DFA) organizes their histories into compact risk-labeled paths for replay and rule-monitor composition. Across all 24 benchmark--horizon settings, PrefixGuard exceeds the strongest evaluated baseline in mean test area under the precision--recall curve (AUPRC). Average gains range from 12.0 to 21.9 percentage points. At a nominal 10% FAR budget, averaged test recall spans 56.1%--93.0% across benchmarks. On one frozen $τ^2$-Bench DFA, model checking five specifications identifies violations in 21 of 265 benchmark-successful runs.